The Rudolf Steiner Archive

6. The Great Lie of Contemporary Civilization

[ 1 ] Our literature already provides us today with a wealth of detailed material from which we can learn about the various facts that spiritual science is now able to bring down from the supersensible worlds, and our branches are able to work with the help of this material. Therefore, it would be advisable for us, on occasions when we meet in person, to also discuss how this material relates to our inner life, how we can integrate it into our lives, and how we ourselves can find refreshment, upliftment, and renewal through it—in short, it would be advisable for us, so to speak, to focus more on the affairs of our spiritual movement on such occasions, since, by the very nature of things, we are rarely able to meet in person.

[ 2 ] Many of you will notice that even today, as you delve into spiritual science or anthroposophy, you encounter a variety of difficulties. Isn’t it true that one is initially drawn into spiritual science by the needs of one’s soul, because the soul must ask questions about the most important mysteries of life? One is drawn to spiritual science in particular when one looks at life today—with all that it entails—and sees how little the various spiritual movements, whether religious or scientific, can truly provide satisfying answers in a deeper sense to the great mysteries of life. And then, once one has found one’s way into this spiritual science movement through one’s thirst for knowledge and one’s yearning for insight—once one has immersed oneself for a time in the insights that have been gleaned from the spiritual worlds to date—difficulties often arise, difficulties of the most varied kinds. They are, of course, different for everyone, so they are not exactly easy to describe in a few words. Our friends often say: “Although I have found my way into spiritual science and thereby gained something extraordinarily valuable, something meaningful for life, it has also, in a certain way, isolated me; it has torn me away from the views and the community of other people; in a sense, it has also made life difficult for me.” This is felt particularly strongly by those who, by the very nature of their spiritual striving, are dependent on the opinion of the outside world. This truly gives rise to the most diverse difficulties.

[ 3 ] Among other friends, after they have immersed themselves in spiritual science for a while, something arises—one might say—that resembles anxiety, something that fills them with apprehension, apprehension about all sorts of questions: how to cope with life and so on. — Many of you have certainly had to grapple with similar questions. Such questions are often matters of feeling and emotion. I would like to begin today’s reflection with these difficulties in our inner spiritual life.

[ 4 ] The true connections between these diverse feelings—which can vary from person to person—are sometimes not fully understood. For we must always bear in mind that today, as people drawn to the anthroposophical truths, we are still only a very small group. We are in the midst of the struggle for existence that is being waged outside our circles with means that are sharply different from our own. And anyone who reflects even a little on all that anthroposophy seeks to be for life will be able to see how fundamentally different the goals of thinking, feeling, and willing—under the influence of anthroposophical ideas—are from the goals that the vast majority of humanity sets for itself today. And since thoughts and feelings are real facts, we must realize that our small group—that is, each and every one of us—is thus situated within a mass of power that is still relatively small compared to the thoughts, perceptions, and feelings of the rest of humanity, which, one might even say, are in most cases completely opposed to our own. Even if the difficulties in life that we face take on the most varied forms and do not immediately reveal that they are connected to what I have just described, they are nevertheless connected to it; and we must try to bring to the forefront of our consciousness how we cope with such difficulties—the difficulties that arise precisely from remaining faithful and devoted to the cause of anthroposophy, and thereby coming into conflict with the rest of the world.

[ 5 ] As I said, things are veiled, and they do not always reveal their true nature. What we must, in a sense, instill in our souls as a remedy in order to find more and more inner harmony, despite the contradictions of the outer world—which we must use to strengthen the soul so that it is equal to the frightening elements within it that often manifest as disharmony—is this: a clear, correct understanding of the relationship between those who profess or are interested in anthroposophy and the rest of humanity. Forming clear, sharp thoughts about this matter purifies our soul in such a way that we can also remain strong when conflicting external forces beset us. If one considers the matter within such a narrow horizon, one might say: “Well, what good does it do me if I am now truly clear about what separates anthroposophy from the rest of the world? It doesn’t change my life circumstances any! — To think this way would be a mistake; for while life circumstances may not change overnight as a result of clear, insightful thoughts, the very strength we gain through such clear thoughts—precisely in the direction just indicated—gradually fortifies us to the point where they do, in fact, transform our life circumstances. It’s just that sometimes we still can’t find a way to develop truly clear, sharp, and therefore sufficiently strong thoughts in this direction.

[ 6 ] With regard to what we seek to attain through spiritual science or anthroposophy—and what we seek to attain not only for ourselves but for the world as well—and we must keep this as one of those clear thoughts before our souls—today’s civilized humanity lives in a terrible lie, more or less conscious or unconscious, and the effect of this lie within civilized humanity is immense. This actually says something very significant, and let us try to clarify this point a little more.

[ 7 ] It is hardly possible for a truly thinking person of sound mind to view what exists today as “general culture” in the so-called civilized world without realizing that this culture lacks many things—and, above all, that it lacks the vital impulses necessary to sustain itself. Yet this culture is full of far-reaching ideals. What a variety of ideals there are in our time—as people call them—for which associations and organizations are founded, drawing up programs through which these or those ideals are to be expressed! All of this is done with the best of intentions—so much so that one can say: Those people who come together in smaller or larger associations from all walks of life, inspired by this or that ideal, wish to do good from their own perspective, and the convictions of these people deserve our full respect. But these people mostly live under the inhibiting influence of a certain limitation—arising from unconscious timidity and unconscious spiritual cowardice—precisely with regard to the most important thing that humanity needs today. We say: the most important thing! What humanity needs today is spiritual knowledge and the introduction of certain spiritual insights into our lives.

[ 8 ] That was indeed a major question, especially throughout the 19th century. You know that there are spiritual laws—laws governing the spiritual worlds. Certain people have known about these at all times, and of course, even during the 19th century—when spiritual science had not yet emerged in the form it takes today—there were so-called occult societies, some of which were more or less worthy of that name, that sought in various ways to cultivate occult truths and spiritual truths, and that also possessed a certain understanding of what spiritual truths mean for the world. Now, precisely in the middle of the 19th century, a crisis had arisen with regard to the deepest impulses of recent human development. This crisis consisted in a particular rise of materialism in all areas—in the realm of knowledge and in the realm of life. Materialism reached a peak. We know, of course, that numerous people emerged who sought to establish a comprehensive worldview based on scientific materialism. But this theoretical materialism would not even have been the most pernicious; rather, it was practical materialism—the materialism that permeates, in particular, ethical and social life as well as people’s religious feelings—that led humanity into a crisis in the course of the 19th century. And those who still possessed some knowledge—drawn from the aforementioned occult societies, which were more or less worthy of the name—therefore turned their attention, particularly from the middle of the 19th century onward, to how one might counteract the rampant materialism. In certain circles that possessed spiritual-scientific insight—though not yet the kind that alone can be effective and that is pursued in the form we, in all modesty, strive to achieve—those, that is, who held an insight into the development of humanity that was based on ancient tradition or was otherwise somehow out of step with the times, asked themselves: How can we counteract what is looming like a calamity over modern humanity through materialism? — And they said to themselves: We can counteract this by providing people with proof that, just as there are sensory facts in our environment, there are also spiritual facts and spiritual beings in our environment. — But, I would say, people were simply accustomed to experimental thinking and to external experience and perception. And so these people, with their spiritual-scientific insights and the concerns I have indicated, knew of no other recourse than to prove the spiritual world in the same way that one proves the natural processes of the external sensory world. And so all manner of approaches were tried. And we see movements emerge in the course of the 19th century that are aimed at convincing people of the existence of a spiritual world. The crudest, I would say, of these movements is the spiritualist movement. While scholars today find it difficult to come to terms with the relatively transparent methods of our spiritual science, truly brilliant scholars of the nineteenth century engaged quite seriously with spiritualism.

[ 9 ] Well, spiritualism has the peculiarity that it is supposed to work in an external way through something that can, so to speak, be presented to the external senses, much like a chemical or physical experiment. To a large extent, this method—which seeks to model spiritual science after natural science—is already, today, largely—I say largely—a failure, and it will become increasingly clear that it is bound to fail, for one cannot, of course, allow people to grasp the spirit with their hands, figuratively speaking. Consequently, much of what has been carried out through all manner of mysterious machinations by certain so-called occult societies throughout the 19th century and up to the present day has served to discredit spiritual scientific research rather than to support it. And so we see that, especially among the most well-meaning people who possess insight—particularly in social matters, but also in other aspects of practical life—a great deal must happen from the present onward and into the future. We see that people who recognize this are downright startled when it is suggested that the most important impulses our time and the near future need must come from true spiritual insight—from the realization that real spiritual forces and spiritual beings exist in the human environment just as surely as sensory facts and sensory beings do. People who have humanity’s best interests at heart are genuinely startled. Let me first present an example. We can learn a great deal from such examples, which deal with broad aspects of life. When we turn our gaze to a major movement, this movement also clearly reveals to us what each of us, on a small scale, actually encounters on a daily basis.

[ 10 ] A truly significant man who was genuinely committed to humanity’s drive for social progress was assassinated in Paris the day before the outbreak of this ill-fated world war: Jaurès. Jaurès was certainly one of the most sincere figures of our time, particularly in the realm of social progress, and he was also one of those who, drawing on all human understanding, strove to gain insight into current living conditions and into the reasons why they are increasingly leading humanity to absurdity and to ever greater impoverishment and degradation, both intellectually and materially. And he strove with all his might to find ideas and thoughts that he wished to convey to people, so that, through a shared endeavor, the great questions of life in the present might move somewhat toward their solution. It is precisely from personalities such as Jaurès that one can learn a great deal, for one learns most when one confronts the great shortcomings—which, especially in our present time, must be viewed from the perspective of the spiritual sciences and about which one must form clear thoughts—not in small figures but in great ones, in whom one can be convinced above all of their sincere disposition, their honest quest for knowledge, and also a certain capacity for insight appropriate to the times. One gains immeasurably more by examining the ills of our time in people whom one respects and holds in high esteem than by attempting to examine them in people whom one respects less, because one cannot attribute to them a benevolent and good disposition in the highest sense. For such people—who have devoted all their thinking, feeling, and willing to the service of humanity, to the service that must be rendered in raising humanity to a higher social level—for people like Jaurès, it becomes extraordinarily difficult—and he is truly no exception; rather, we see the best people of our time facing this difficulty— it is truly difficult for such people to speak about things like our spiritual science. And yet it is precisely these highly gifted people who would be able to accomplish for humanity what they wish to accomplish only if they could say: Everything I can achieve with my ordinary intellectual and scientific means provides me only with impulses that are too weak to truly take hold of life; I must realize that all these impulses I wish to offer humanity in my own way stand on no foundation. I must first create a foundation for myself; I must permeate and infuse what I have believed until now with the deeper foundation provided by spiritual science. I must acknowledge spiritual facts—real spiritual facts.

[ 11 ] You see, anyone who does not acknowledge such spiritual realities and instead devises all sorts of ideas and ideals about how to promote human progress today is like someone who has a garden in front of them with many plants that are beginning to show signs of dying; they do this, do that, do many things, and strive all the time—but they achieve nothing. Yes, one plant may be doing a little better, while another is doing worse; on the whole, however, the plants are not improving. Why aren’t they improving? Perhaps because some disease has taken hold of the roots, which he fails to examine. This is precisely the case with the social endeavors of people like Jaurès. They put in an enormous amount of effort; they also accomplish an enormous amount of excellent work on the surface, but they do not penetrate to the roots, for in the roots of our present-day human life, there is a lack of recognition of a real spiritual world. And no matter how many seemingly well-founded social insights one may put forward, they will bear no real fruit for humanity unless they are based on those insights that can come only from spiritual science. Therefore, true progress for humanity today will only be possible if spiritual science can be recognized to such an extent that the very aspect of spiritual science most important for our time—the recognition of real spiritual beings and spiritual forces—no longer encounters any resistance among people, especially not among the best of people. Let us simply reflect clearly on the fact that the best people, those of good will, have difficulty precisely with the most important aspect of our cause: the recognition of the spiritual world as such.

[ 12 ] Over in Zurich, I drew attention to a point that illustrates this particularly well. There is a person who has spoken quite favorably about our spiritual science and even had his remarks published—a man who, before a very educated audience, once mustered the courage to no longer regard what lives specifically within our spiritual movement as mere folly. Yet this man, too, cannot help but stop short of the most important point—the recognition of the spiritual world. What does he say? “We must seek to understand it [this spiritual movement], at least within the circle gathered around Steiner, rather as a religious movement among our contemporaries—albeit not of an original nature, but rather of a syncretic kind, yet directed toward the foundation of all life; we may regard it as a movement aimed at satisfying people’s supersensory interests, and thus as a transcendence of the realism that clings to the sensible world; we may recognize in it, above all, a movement that directs people toward self-reflection on the moral problems they face, and that aims at a process of inner rebirth arising from a painstaking focus on self-education; One need only read Steiner’s book Introduction to Theosophy to realize with what seriousness people are directed here toward the work of their moral purification and self-perfection.”

[ 13 ] I am not reading these words to you out of some sort of frivolity, but because we truly want to take a clear-eyed look at how the outside world views our endeavors. We see that he is a well-meaning person who, admittedly, regards our movement as syncretistic—primarily because he is unfamiliar with it and does not realize that it is, for that very reason, an entirely new movement, since it is based on something that is new in the world: the new scientific approach, which, after all, forms its foundation. He simply cannot provide any insight into this because he does not understand it; but he is well-disposed toward our movement. And if one now lets this entire lecture he gave—“The World of Ideas of the Educated”—sink in, one sees: The man reflects that a spiritual education of humanity is necessary in our time, and he finds in our movement one of the attempts to promote this spiritual movement of humanity. But then he says—and this is the key point—“In its speculation directed toward the supersensible, it is a reaction against materialism; however, in doing so, it easily loses touch with reality and gets carried away by hypotheses”—he believes that true spiritual insights are hypotheses, not insights—“by clairvoyant fantasies, by a realm of dreams, so that it no longer retains sufficient strength for the reality of individual and social life.”

[ 14 ] You see, even though he passes such a favorable judgment—going so far as to say afterward, “But still, we want to and must acknowledge theosophy as a corrective phenomenon in the educational process of the present”— he feels compelled to pause before all that without which our movement cannot even be conceived—before what we present right at the outset: supersensible facts; for unless human beings establish a connection with supersensible facts, humanity cannot escape the dead end into which it is heading today. But even well-meaning people believe that—while our movement is precisely seeking the firm ground beneath our feet, without which all other social ideals hang in the air—this movement leads into the realm of dreams, that it “no longer retains sufficient strength,” particularly with regard to the shaping of social life. As I said, this is not ill will born of mistrust, but rather a mistrust that has sprung from unconscious timidity, from unconscious despondency in the face of acknowledging spiritual realities. This is a clear lack of insight—or rather, it is clear that it is a lack of insight into precisely what spiritual science can contribute as a foundation for social endeavors as well.

[ 15 ] And so even people of Jaurès’s ilk naturally find themselves today in a position where they are unable—based on the ideas they have absorbed through their upbringing and their entire contemporary context—to acknowledge that everything that happens physically is dependent on spiritual worlds, and that human beings, in the sphere in which they are called upon to intervene in life—for example, with regard to social life—can only intervene correctly if they are enabled to do so by knowing the spiritual laws through which the spiritual world can be brought into the physical world. And the fact that such people face this impossibility—that this is truly a widespread phenomenon of our time, even among the best people of the present—brings into our age the significant, albeit unconscious, but no less significant, life lies. One can detect these life lies virtually everywhere.

[ 16 ] Let us consider the case of Jaurès, since it is a typical example. There stood a man before the rest of humanity who, using every means of social understanding, sought to improve what he correctly recognized as something that could only lead people into a dead end. Here stands a man before the rest of humanity who, in order to gain the necessary insights in this area, truly familiarizes himself with all historical facts, who studies the history of past times and seeks to learn from the facts of earlier eras what can be done in the present, so that mistakes—which have proven to be clear errors in humanity’s earlier social experiments—can be avoided. In all his endeavors, however, Jaurès—like others—is placed in the impossible position of being unable to acknowledge, in a truly real sense, a spiritual world; of being unable to acknowledge, in a truly real sense, that through human beings, continuous streams of spiritual life flow down from the spiritual world into this world. One of the fine essays Jaurès wrote deals with the relationships that exist between socialism and patriotism in the Jaurèsian sense. In it, Jaurès attempts to show how historical events intervene in human development and exert an influence upon it. After reflecting on various aspects of what shaped the Roman Empire—in order to learn from it how to act in the present—and what shaped the Greek world—in order to learn from it how to act in other eras, after he has truly brought various matters before his mind with an extraordinarily thorough thirst for knowledge, he then also presents a chapter from more recent times. There is a remarkable chapter in this book by Jaurès that deals with the proletariat and patriotism, and it is interesting to examine this very short chapter in order to see what is actually going on in the souls of the best people around us today.

[ 17 ] In this chapter, Jaurès aims to show that, in recent social progress, land ownership is not the main factor, but rather industry and so on; however, we will not delve into these matters; what is important is that he is compelled here to point to the figure of Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orléans. Now just imagine: a man who lives entirely in the ideas of the present refers to the Maid of Orléans, a figure about whom anyone familiar with recent history knows—and anyone who objectively acknowledges the facts must admit—that the map of Europe today would simply be entirely different had she not intervened. Jaurès, of course, recognizes this as well. He says:

[ 18 ] “Joan of Arc fulfills her mission and sacrifices herself for the salvation of her homeland in a France where the land was no longer the sole source of vitality; the communes were already playing a major role, and Louis the Saint had sanctioned and solemnly proclaimed the craft charters and guild laws, the Parisian revolutions under the reigns of Charles V and Charles VI had seen the merchant bourgeoisie and the artisan class emerge as new forces; the most far-sighted among those who wished to reform the kingdom dreamed of an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry against lawlessness and arbitrariness; in this modern France, which the ‘Citizen King’ — the son of the poor ruler whom Joan of Arc was about to save — was soon to reign; in this diverse, cultured, and refined country, which was touched by the tender literary sorrows of that Charles d’Orléans, whose captivity moved the heart of the good Lorraine; in this society, which was anything but rural, Joan of Arc appeared. She was a simple country girl who had witnessed the sorrows and hardships of the peasants around her, yet to whom all these tribulations were merely a close-at-hand example of the sublime and greater suffering endured by the plundered monarchy and the ravaged nation. In her soul and in her thoughts, no place, no estate plays a role; she gazes out beyond the fields of Lorraine. Her peasant heart is greater than all peasantry. It beats for the distant, noble cities that the foreign invader has surrounded. Living in the fields does not necessarily mean being absorbed in matters of the soil. Amid the noise and bustle of the cities, Jeanne’s dream would certainly have been less free, less bold, and less far-reaching. Solitude protected the boldness of her thinking, and she experienced the great patriotic community much more intensely, since her imagination could, without confusion, fill the silent horizon with a pain and a hope that transcended it. It was not the spirit of peasant rebellion that filled her; she wanted to liberate all of France in order to later consecrate it to the worship of God, to Christianity, and to justice. Her goal seemed so lofty and pleasing to God that, in order to achieve it, she later found the courage to even defy the Church and invoke a revelation that stood far above any other revelation.”

[ 19 ] Here we see a man who is condemned because, immersed as he is in the materialistic thinking of the present, he is compelled—so to speak—to think solely on the basis of materialistic principles; yet, because he also wishes to be historically honest, he is forced to point out this remarkable phenomenon of the Maid of Orleans and to take her as seriously as we can discern from his words. Thus, the full historical significance of Joan of Arc stands before Jaurès. But now we ask ourselves: What can ultimately—and while this may perhaps be taking things too far, even personally, for Jaurès if we assert this, for many others who act in Jaurès’s spirit it is certainly not taking things too far—what can there be for such a person, who lives within a social worldview like Jaurès’s, what could Joan of Arc really be other than someone who, through a certain religious ecstasy—which, if one wishes to remain a rational person, one should not strive for—came to the impulses to which she had, in fact, already come? Certainly, these people will not recognize what must be clear to us from spiritual science: that in an age when the modern, developed understanding of the spirit, as we have it today, had not yet been attained, streams of spiritual life flowed in from the spiritual worlds through such more or less subconsciously active personalities as the Maid of Orleans; that she was a medium, not for the kind of people by whom mediums have so often been abused in more recent times, but for divine-spiritual worlds that wished to influence the physical world of the Earth. It had to be acknowledged that what came from the Maid of Orleans was of greater value than what others, drawing on their human insights, were able or willing to communicate. Of course, such people could not acknowledge that the spiritual world spoke through this Joan of Arc. And yet, when they speak of the actual facts, they must speak of people such as the Maid of Orleans; they must even acknowledge them. Thus, they must attribute what happens—just consider this: what happens—to personalities whose spiritual life they do not acknowledge, whose spiritual life they certainly do not wish to strive toward.

[ 20 ] Even if people still refuse to admit this today—and it is possible to turn a blind eye to this fact—this is nothing but the deepest lie of life. This is a true lie of life, and I am merely describing to you one instance of that lie of life which pulsates throughout our social life today, and which stems from the fact that people do not acknowledge what is truly real—what is most real of all—yet must regard it as a fact because of what recent intellectual developments have brought to light. Lies are, after all, facts as well, and they have a corresponding effect. And even if they are well-meaning, earnestly striving, significant people, such as Jaurès—since they are bound by the circumstances of the times to such a lie of life, what comes from them cannot, nevertheless, have a liberating effect on humanity.

[ 21 ] Yes, here we stand in the midst of a reality of life that we must allow to take effect clearly and distinctly, and in all its depth, upon our souls. We must have the courage to look at such life lies with clear insight, and from this clear observation we must find the strength to stand firm in the face of everything that pours in from all sides—and which, after all, sometimes originates from this life lie, albeit heavily disguised and concealed from one side or another. What real inner insight into the interconnections of human life can people who are caught up in such a life lie actually gain? They must think to themselves: Oh, there are these strange eccentrics who want to have a connection to the spiritual worlds, like the Maid of Orleans, and one must even attribute historical significance to them; but surely one really need not hold this up as an example to be emulated, so that one might somehow introduce spiritual forces into the physical world! — Much water will certainly still flow down the Rhine before wider circles of people come to understand and acknowledge the grave reality of which we have spoken. Today, even natural scientists have adopted the same airs and graces that theologians once displayed toward the Maid of Orleans. For what Jaurès points out here at the end is part of the profound tragedy of the Maid of Orleans’s appearance back then. The theologians said at the time: “What she is presenting as her spiritual insights into the world does not correspond to what we recognize through our theology!” — That statement flowed at the time in the field of theology from the very same mindset from which, today—after a relatively shorter period of time than was the case with theology—the natural scientists speak. At that time, the Maid of Orleans replied to those who judged her from a theological standpoint and who said she must justify her miracles and her mission from the Holy Scriptures: “There is more written in the Book of God than in all your books!” — That is a historic statement. But it is also a statement that remains valid today. For from the standpoint of spiritual science, all objections—whether theological or scientific—can be countered: “There is more written in the Book of the spiritual worlds than all that the adversaries could ever dream of.”—And Jaurès adds to these words: “A wondrous statement that, in a certain sense, stands in contrast to the peasant soul, whose faith is rooted above all in tradition.” How far removed all this is from the dull, narrow-minded, and limited patriotism of the landowning class! But Jeanne hears the divine voices of her heart as she looks up toward the radiant and gentle heights of heaven.”

[ 22 ] Yes, such recognition certainly sounds quite good coming from our contemporaries; but what is it, even when spoken by the very best among them? It is recognition of something they more or less regard as fiction—a fiction that can make life more or less beautiful, but to which they deny any reality. And that is what constitutes the lie of life!

[ 23 ] Thus we see that we need clarity regarding the existence of this “life lie.” Its effects confront us everywhere, and today it prevents spiritual science from gaining the influence it ought to have. But more and more people will not only have to gain theoretical insights into spiritual science, but will also have to find the strong inner strength to introduce spiritual science into the various branches of life. This could be demonstrated in the most diverse areas of life. And yet again, one can say that the true facts are being masked here. For, on the surface, it seems possible to raise objections against everything that spiritual science has to say. Let us take an area of life that, one might say, is most highly valued by humanity for the simple reason that it is very closely related to physical health. You see, spiritual science could have an immensely beneficial effect if people were willing to allow medical schools, medicine, and pharmacology to be influenced to some extent by this spiritual science. For modern scientific development has increasingly led to medicine itself taking on a materialistic character. Certainly, this materialistic character has also brought about many blessings, and one need only point to the extraordinarily great advances that have been made in the field of surgery to find some justification, at any rate, for the repeated assertion—which I, too, make—that one must admire the recent advances in natural science. But there are other, no less important aspects of medical knowledge and the art of medicine that suffer immensely under the materialistic approach, and which can only look forward to a promising future if spiritual scientific insight is introduced into the relevant research.

[ 24 ] Through such spiritual-scientific insight, connections within the human organism are recognized—connections of which modern medical science is aware only in detail. Certainly, more perceptive researchers often intuit such things instinctively; but this does not allow progress to occur quickly enough, and one might say: If such a fanciful rejection of everything related to spiritual science did not prevail, particularly in the field of medicine, and if medicine were not striving to be monopolized as a power by the relevant authorities and governments, then, for the benefit of humanity, tremendous achievements could be made through spiritual science, particularly in the field of medicine. You might say: Well, nothing prevents a spiritual researcher from bringing about these advances! — But that is precisely where things are being misrepresented, for that is simply not true. The materialistic system, as it prevails today, does in fact prevent spiritual research from intervening. For it is a completely false belief that the spiritual researcher, who sees through things today, can help an individual in every case. He is hindered by the external materialistic structure of medicine, and will be hindered more and more if this materialistic structure of medicine continues for much longer. One cannot say to the spiritual researcher in the field of medicine: “Here is Rhodus, here dance”—because his legs have not been freed to dance. Certainly, all sorts of commendable efforts are being made to rebel against the prevailing materialism in medicine; but these efforts are all insufficient, because above all there is a lack of insight into the fact that one must not merely oppose materialistic medicine, but that it is above all necessary to work with—but in the spiritual-scientific sense—what modern medicine has acquired: namely, the tools that are objectively needed in this very field. But humanity would be very surprised at what different results would emerge if, today, one were to enter clinics and dissection rooms with spiritual-scientific perspectives and to infuse all the other resources and tools of medical practice with a spiritual-scientific outlook. Yet efforts must also be directed in this direction. Our efforts must not be directed toward disregarding materialistic medicine, but rather toward bringing spiritual science into this materialistic system. And until then, we cannot help in specific cases either. The reasons why this cannot be done cannot be discussed in such a short lecture; but that is the case. Thus, precisely in a field so closely related to the physical healing of human beings, an immense amount could be accomplished with a little open-mindedness.

[ 25 ] And with regard to the pressing social issues, it would become apparent that, although many attempts are still being made to improve this or that in the social sphere, or to improve this or that living condition, all these attempts will fail. Only when we come to base social understanding on the axioms of the humanities—just as we base mathematics or geometry on their axioms—will we find truly effective means.

[ 26 ] And so we live in a world to which, above all else, our own soul—when we are moved by spiritual science or anthroposophy—must respond with radically different thoughts and feelings. We live, so to speak, in an atmosphere that demands of us a strong exertion of energy, a strong ability to hold our ground. And these are the deeper reasons why we can often become disheartened, why we can feel lonely, and why perhaps one or the other, by professing a commitment to spiritual science, finds it difficult to cope with life. But if we have a clear understanding of how great is that into which we are placing ourselves within the context of all humanity, and how it appears today to be only a small thing because we are still in the beginning, then we can also find this strength—we can truly find it. Everything great in human development, in particular, must have a small beginning.

[ 27 ] Here, too, as I have done in Zurich these past few days, I would like to point out how the thinking of people today is permeated by narrow-mindedness, illogicality, and incoherence. This stems from the fact that, in recent developments, the natural sciences have had a dazzling effect on this newer generation of humanity. These natural sciences have indeed produced magnificent, admirable results with regard to the external sensory world, and as a result, those who previously stewarded humanity’s spiritual heritage felt—I would say—pushed back, increasingly pushed back. Certain theologians, in particular, have fared poorly in this regard. It is incorrect to simply reject from the outset what people have developed as theology throughout human evolution. This theology contains deep, significant fundamental truths, including truths about the human soul; even if these truths must first be illuminated more closely by spiritual science in many respects, fundamental truths are indeed contained within them. Simply because these truths are not presented in a way that meets the needs of humanity today, a longing for an answer to the questions posed by spiritual science must arise in the thinking person and in the feeling soul. But the theologians who are unwilling to go along with such an esoteric scientific endeavor found themselves in a peculiar situation: they had truths, but these truths were inapplicable to anything, for the other sciences had taken away the objects upon which these truths were based. Theologians had truths about the soul—but the soul had been taken away from them by the natural sciences. And now theology may express truths in words, but it pays no attention to the objects; it is even willing to let the natural sciences quietly investigate the objects, for theologians are, in many respects, too complacent to truly engage with the natural sciences. And this is what we must recognize as significant in spiritual science: that this spiritual science fully engages with natural science, immerses itself in all that natural science has acquired, and contributes by adding spiritual-scientific principles to the work of natural science. Theologians did not want to do this; precisely when it matters most to participate, they are sometimes animated by a very peculiar mindset.

[ 28 ] A man who is regarded in certain circles as an exceptionally outstanding theologian—both as a professor, which he used to be, and as a pastor—has written a little book in which he recounts religious lectures; and in this little book, he expresses thoughts that offer a remarkable glimpse into his mind. One gets a glimpse into the soul of a significant contemporary figure—indeed, I can’t put it any other way: one is sometimes overwhelmed by the kind of thought patterns that a significant figure can bring to light today! For example, right in the first lecture, this famous, significant man speaks of the need to approach the natural sciences and to relinquish the natural human being; as a theologian, one may retain only the human being of freedom. But freedom itself becomes a mere word in this sense! Does he not say there that he would transfer the entire content of the soul to the natural sciences? — Now he has retained nothing but a wisdom of words—and he even gives a rather charming reason for holding this view; namely, he states quite matter-of-factly that this is his view. So here is a theologian who, in these lectures, sought to describe the most modern form of Christianity to his audience, yet who says right in the very first lecture: “Man, as he appears to us in zoology—the bipedal, upright-walking homo sapiens, endowed with a finely developed spine and brain—is just as much a part of nature as any other organic or inorganic entity; he is composed of the same matter, the same energies, the same atoms, and is permeated and governed by the same force; in any case, the entire physical life of human beings, however complex it may be, is, in its entirety, determined by the natural sciences and ordered by laws, just like every other living and non-living entity in nature. In this respect, there is no difference whatsoever between human beings and a jellyfish, a drop of water, or a grain of sand.”

[ 29 ] Theological Lectures, lectures by a theologian, a pastor! But this theologian does not speak this way only in reference to the physical; he goes on to say: “The mental functions that are accessible to the scientific method are subject to laws just as strict as those governing physical processes; and the sensations we experience, as well as the ideas we form, are just as much imposed on us by nature”—note: the sensations and ideas! — “as the neural processes that lead to sensations of pleasure and displeasure. They are just as much mechanical concepts as those of a steam engine.”

[ 30 ] You see, the soul slips away toward the natural scientists, and the theologian retains only the old theological empty phrase, for which he comes up with clichés; for the final pages, the final lectures, now consist solely of clichés designed to cloak what has been discussed in theological empty phrases. But he reveals the mindset behind why he is so generous today in surrendering these subjects. And there one does catch a very peculiar mindset: just think, he says, theologians must act as he does; one must even go further, he says: “This natural-law-based determinacy of human beings concerns not only their physical functions but also their mental functions. “That is what we theologians have always refused to admit”—but he has moved beyond that; he has risen higher, and now he admits it—“because we confused the scientific concept of the soul with the theological one and feared unpleasant consequences for the faith.”

[ 31 ] But now he has reached the point where he no longer fears any unpleasant consequences for faith—consequences he himself admits exist! Then he says: “But these arise precisely when one does not allow science to reach its full conclusion;” So he is now saying: Let’s give in to this science now, otherwise it will still have unpleasant consequences! Otherwise, this science will have dreadful consequences. — And then we catch him in a truly remarkable light: “for then one forfeits the trust of thinking people.”

[ 32 ] There you have it: what the great theologian strives for today! Through all these paths—the best ones—that I have described to you today, people have arrived at those feelings with which they place their trust in us when we speak of the spiritual; we must not forfeit that trust, and therefore we must certainly not apply the true inner strength of the soul that could be grounded in spiritual insight! — We see: When we catch people in what, let us say, pervades their innermost being today—when we do not thoughtlessly pass over such things—then people today reveal themselves in a remarkable way. We must have clear insights into this. Based on these clear insights, we should not be surprised that, when such thoughts are fostered by those officially charged today with the religious and spiritual education of humanity, we find it difficult to step into the world with the radically opposite perspective.

[ 33 ] We must constantly remind ourselves of the cause we are actually serving within the broader context of humanity by countering the seductive ideas facing humanity today—which come from such quarters—with those that alone can bear fruit. And such a thought is capable of lifting us up again, even in the deepest depression, and restoring our strength. Such a thought is absolutely essential in every second of our lives, and it is important that we pursue spiritual science in such a way that we reveal as little of it as possible to the outside world, yet absorb it so strongly and intensely within ourselves that, even in the face of the trials it imposes on us, we have the strength to say to ourselves: they must be there! — Since our karma has led us to it, let us also accept whatever it may impose upon us as a trial. For the opposing forces in the world today are immensely difficult for spiritual science to contend with, and people are, deep down, completely unaware of this. For, of course, that man has no inkling of what the very essence of thinking and feeling actually is—and what can only be revealed when one gains a clear perspective, from the standpoint of spiritual science, on the entire pernicious and destructive nature of such thinking—of all this, the man has absolutely no inkling! Therefore, no blame can be attributed to him, nor can he be disregarded; rather, one must accept such a fact quite objectively, like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, which also have a destructive effect on humanity—albeit in a small area—through external physical means. But the man really cannot think. And in that sense, he is merely an example of the most prominent people of our time who cannot think. He cannot think! Imagine him saying: “We naturally leave the human body to the natural sciences; there’s no other way, after all; for what are we theologians supposed to do with it? We cannot examine the body, can we?” — This man has no idea that, when one truly examines the spirit, this spirit is a co-builder of the body—that one therefore cannot separate the body at all and simply give it away, as was explained yesterday in the public lecture. He gives away the body; but he gives away the soul as well—for it functions practically like a steam engine—and he reserves only, as he explicitly states, “man as freedom” for theology. He even generously gives away “man as nature”; he reserves “man as freedom.” But now, having reserved man as freedom, he naturally says: “Man as nature loses his independence and freedom as a component of nature; everything he experiences, he endures, and he must endure it entirely according to the law of nature.”

[ 34 ] So man loses this freedom through his nature. And now just imagine what this theologian is actually holding back! First he says: man as nature—he gives that to nature and reserves man as freedom for himself; but then he states: man as nature is such that, as a component of nature, he loses his independence and freedom, and “everything he experiences, he suffers; he must suffer it entirely according to the law of nature.” Now he has absolutely nothing left! So it’s no wonder that he then goes on to speak only in platitudes. But the good man doesn’t notice any of this, and he is a typical example of how even the most prominent people today are oblivious to the discontinuity in thought that is at work today. Humanity has now reached a stage of development where what is supposed to be thinking about physical life must be enriched by thoughts that also relate to the spiritual world; otherwise, the thoughts relating to the physical world will break down in every respect, because the people who have a say today are unfamiliar with even the simplest facts of how the world works.

[ 35 ] We know that people today are in a transitional period. We are not speaking in the superficial sense in which people now speak of transitional periods, but in a different sense. We are precisely in those transitional periods in which the old atavistic, clairvoyant instincts have died out and in which conscious entry into the spiritual worlds must be attained. This is a fact that is obvious to the spiritual researcher. But those ancient atavistic-clairvoyant abilities that people once possessed also gave them effective thoughts, insofar as they needed them during their respective cultural epochs. History tells us very little of the greatness that the Chaldean or Egyptian cultural epochs possessed in terms of thoughts that intervened in human life. No matter how little they may stand up to our criticism today, they were valid for their time. Transformative thoughts—our age must once again gain thoughts capable of transforming reality! But it can do so only if it is inspired by the spiritual world, just as the ancient times were inspired by the spiritual world. Yet people today are not being inspired in an unconscious way. Therefore, consciousness must take hold if spiritual scientific knowledge is to be truly recognized by people. And even in the case of this man—whom one can so easily demonstrate to be afflicted by the worst effects of our age’s thoughtlessness, and who causes immeasurable harm by infecting so many people with his thoughtlessness—even in him, one does not find a malicious person; one is in fact dealing with a person of insight—namely, one who possesses precisely the kind of insight that is possible in our time when one cannot, in a certain sense, advance toward the true spiritual world, in the sense that I have described—that even people like Jaurès cannot advance. But even people like the one who gave these religious lectures—even such people know that humanity today, in a certain sense, faces a dead end, that we cannot go on in this way with the thinking, feeling, and willing that the old attitudes and the old elements of worldview have provided. And he also knows that this has led to materialism in recent times, and he knows that things must change. And, deep down, he is actually quite radical, for he speaks of how the nineteenth century led people to develop concepts such as “sportism,” “comfortism,” and “mammonism.” This man speaks of all these things—which are certain dark sides of materialism—and he is quite willing to say: “Sports-ism, comfort-ism, mammon-ism, as they emerged in the 19th century, must be combated.” However, what he says remains mere rhetoric, for at the end of the first lecture—one can hardly believe one’s eyes, one doubts one’s own powers of discernment—the following is written. The following can be uttered today by an important, famous man. He begins by stating quite correctly: All these things that are happening must be reevaluated; “they must no longer be the ultimate goal. There must no longer be any businessman for whom the acquisition of money is an end in itself; the enjoyment of life must no longer be the content of life; there must no longer be any people who live solely for their health.”

[ 36 ] Well, he is very radical. From the standpoint of spiritual science, we will certainly not advocate such radical ideas; rather, we will leave people to their own freedom, and we know that if they understand karma, reincarnation, and the rest of what spiritual science has to offer, they will find their way in the details of life. But this man, who knows that people have driven themselves into a dead end, says quite radically that he would change if he embraced spiritual science—that people should no longer earn money, no longer enjoy life, no longer live for their health. I once—and this is just one case among thousands—visited a sanatorium headed by a famous man; there were people with nervous disorders there. I could see whole groups of them parading past as they went to lunch. It struck me that the sickest, most restless of them all—was the famous director of the hospital himself! But now, our man, our theologian, is radical; he says: The content of life must change; no one should live solely for their health anymore, and so on. But now consider the following lines: “That is to say:” — he says, and with that he comes to the end of his lecture — “everything that has been done so far should continue to be done, but something else must be kept in mind.”

[ 37 ] That is life reform! Just think about it: this is the life reform of a person who looks so deeply into what is necessary: Everything must change—that is to say, nothing should actually change, but everything should simply be thought of differently: “These things must not represent the innermost essence, the goal, or the highest value. They must be pursued with the same energy, and they must be evaluated”—that is, conceived of—“according to a different scale than before.”

[ 38 ] Well, there’s nothing more to be said about these things! It is indeed necessary to draw attention to these matters; for they are not to be found in any single individual, but are present throughout the entire civilized world today. And what people experience in their destinies stems from nothing other than this deficiency in thinking and feeling; that is the karma of this deficiency in thinking and feeling! One must first direct one’s attention to this, and—at the very least as a scholar of the spiritual sciences—find the ability to turn a deaf ear to what is currently sweeping and raging through the world, and to what is recognized as “highest values” based on other impulses; but one must truly, in this regard—without allowing oneself to be clouded by all manner of other feelings that govern the world today and under whose influence so much lying takes place—be able to look at these fundamental matters; for these things exert their influence. We live in such a sphere—as I have already said in Zurich—that this man, who imparts such material to people so that, as they listen to him, these monsters of thought enter their hearts and minds, can say: “The contents of this little book consist of 12 speeches that I delivered last winter in …” —now comes the city, which I do not wish to name—“before an audience of more than a thousand people.”

[ 39 ] But—the city is completely indifferent—there are thousands of them now! We must see through this. And it is indeed necessary to truly take to heart the full gravity and significance of such a consideration.

[ 40 ] And now that we have drawn much from the spiritual world, we must recognize what this material drawn from the spiritual world is meant to be for us; through this, we must also recognize that we are, in a sense, looking into the antithesis of that worldview which is far more prevalent among people today than we realize. Unfortunately, people today live far too thoughtlessly! That is what weighs so heavily on the soul: having to look upon the dullness so widespread throughout the world—forgive me for having to say this, but we must recognize it clearly—the dullness in which humanity lives in relation to what acts and guides the course of human development. We must also acquire the necessary nuances of feeling for the kind of truth contained in spiritual science by allowing ourselves to be imbued with these nuances through the contemplation of the opposite image. What matters, therefore, will not merely be seeking all sorts of fine words that sound good—as if they were lofty ideals to be held up before humanity—but, above all, recognizing what even the best of our contemporaries cannot recognize: that it is the spiritual world that must be opened up. There are good reasons—and why this is so cannot be explained here, as it would take too long—there are good reasons why, over the centuries, humanity has resisted understanding Christianity in a spiritual sense. In the early centuries of Christianity, there was Gnosticism. As you all know, our spiritual science is not a revival of Gnosticism, but Gnosticism was, at that time, the first to make the effort to arrive at a spiritual science; it was suppressed because people did not want to see Christian truths in the light of the spirit; this same tendency then continued and also found its way into scientific endeavors. Humanity has also learned a great deal from having fought against the possibility of understanding the spiritual realm for centuries. But now we have entered a period in which it is indeed most difficult for those who are fully immersed in our contemporary culture—which is, after all, materialistic, even if people do not admit it—to acknowledge the existence of a real spiritual world; that is, not merely vague talk of a spiritual world, but a direct, intuitive knowledge of a spiritual world. We must, however, realize that the recognition of this spiritual world is of the utmost importance, and that only then can the rest follow—that which must emerge as a new foundation for the ethical, social, and other practical aspects of life—when foundations are laid through spiritual science, through the recognition of real spiritual facts and spiritual beings.

[ 41 ] It gave me great satisfaction that we were once again able to gather here in St. Gallen after such a long time, and I therefore considered it my duty today to add to what you can glean from our literature some of what perhaps needs to be spoken personally, from soul to soul, within our movement, so that it may be understood in the right sense. For within our movement, it is not merely a matter of absorbing this or that from spiritual science in a catechism-like manner; rather, it is a matter of finding the right relationship between our soul and the insights from the spiritual world. Then spiritual science will not merely be a science to us; then it will truly be a way of life for us; then it will be nourishment for our souls, but such nourishment for the soul that does not undermine our spiritual health and vitality, but rather stimulates them in such a way that, despite all the resistance of the outer world—the nature of which we have sought to explore in part today—we can still place ourselves harmoniously within the world. I wanted to speak to you today about how one should relate to spiritual science in a spiritual sense. And if it was necessary to present to you contemporary phenomena that can perhaps only be illuminated in this way through spiritual science, it was for the reason that only a clear, distinct insight into the course of the world in which we live can enable us—as adherents of the anthroposophical worldview—to find the correct inner attitude, that is, harmony. And from this inner harmony, a harmony in our lives will also emerge. And the fact that this harmony in our lives is brought about more and more through spiritual science—that is, after all, our spiritual-scientific ideal. In the spirit of this ideal, I wanted to offer you a small contribution today.